Morality does not actually exist it is simply peoples opinions and biological instincts. We can not truly say then that a person is immoral even murderers. Morality is subjective not objective. There is no evidence that one must not murder another purpose. I am not claiming that we shouldn't follow moral or ethical codes but we must remember that it is a subjective phenomena brought about by instinct and culture.

morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [1]

exist- to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur. [2]

I contend that morality does exist. Morality exists when there are displayed instances of right, moral conduct. If one was to find others and attempt to convert them into Christianity, that would be an outward display of right conduct, or morality. Clearly, in that situation, morality is found, or exists. Therefore, the resolution is negated, as I have proved that morality does exist.

Although morality may be subjective, that does not mean it does not exist. Although people have different perceptions of morality, that simply means that people interpret moral conduct in various manners. Morality still exists, although it is not consistent in the minds of a number of people.

morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [1]

One can certainly practice rules of conduct but this does not mean that one ought follow the rules of conduct. A person could say that beating children is "moral" and another could say it is immoral. What I define as "Morality" isn't merely the conformity to rules of conduct, but the belief that one ought follow those beliefs or codes of conduct. Certainly anyone can claim that that something is moral or immoral but this in itself does not make or justify moral propositions. When a shark kills a seal in the wild we don't say whether that was "moral" or "immoral", we understand that the seal nor the shark understand there action. We recognize that what we claim as morality is subjective and that we can not truly say whether the shark was justified in killing the seal.

Christianity claims that we ought to follow "god" but this statement alone does not justify it. There is no evidence that this is so. An advance alien civilization could look at us humans and consider are wars and feuds over wealth and power as "immoral", but this moral claim like all other ones have the same problem of justifying there proposition.

My opponent quotes:
"We recognize that what we claim as morality is subjective..."
My opponent states that humans can reference morality as being subjective. The mere act of noting morality as subjective implies that morality exists, for things in existence are labeled as subjective or objective. The resolution is negated.

Although there are many preferences of morality, there is no doubt that it exists. It does not matter if different people have different feelings of morality. My opponent has already conceded that morality is subjective, and has thus recognized morality being existent. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.

I now recognize that my debate statement "morality does not exist" is incorrect. I should have named it "Objective Morality does not exist" I was trying to debate that and not realizing what my statement debate statement actually meant. I urge the viewers of this debate to vote for con as he has adequately refuted my claim that "Morality does not exist".

I would like to thank studentathletechristian8 for the debate, I intend to do more debates on this site with like minded people.

If PRO were to show that morality is fundamentally subjective, then he could've done something. However, his failure to do that and to word the resolution to mean "moral facts do not exist" is probably what led to his loss.

Pro attempted to exclude instinct as a source of morality, that's a fundamental error. Instinct is objectively defined for the species, and therefore morality derived from instinct is objectively defined for our species. For example, the survival instinct leads to the morality of self-defense. Instincts can conflict, as with duties to self, family, and community, so there are moral questions that are difficult or perhaps impossible to resolve. However, there being difficult cases does not mean that all morality is arbitrary or subjective.

How many generations has it been since the bulk of humanity has had to depend primarily on its instincts to survive? Whatever natural reactions relating to the animal kingdom we still exhibit are likely so hard-wired that we won't lose sight of them until they are no longer environmentally or socially useful.

However, instinct is distinctive to natural processes. The human race is becoming less involved with the natural cycles and bountiness of the Earth, and thus is losing instinct in consequent generations. In several years, the statement could serve true.

Is that a common expression? It's new to me. Anyway, I'd disagree. Even if we assume instinct is their default behavior across all circumstances, I'd imagine their natural reactions would become honed over time to accommodate adult situations.